Human Rights Leader Discusses How Justice Can Prevent Mass Atrocities

The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy hosted Juan Méndez, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice and Visiting Professor of Law at the American University Washington College of Law, Monday (Nov. 2) to speak about justice as a preventative mechanism for mass atrocities. Méndez, who was held as a political prisoner during the Argentine military dictatorship in the 1970s, was adopted by Amnesty International as a "Prisoner of Conscience." After his release from detention in the late 1970s, he moved to the United States and, from 2004-2007, he served as the United Nations Special Adviser to Secretary General Kofi Annan on the prevention of genocide.

At the event, Méndez discussed the shortcomings of the international community to reign-in impunity of recent and past mass atrocities.

“Impunity,” he said, “is the leading factor for instability. Impunity breeds violation.”

He expressed his belief that unresolved grievances fuel future violations – often since victims resort to taking solutions into their own hands. It is in this regard that seeking justice through international institutions like the International Criminal Court, as well as domestic judicial systems, serves to prevent future violations.

As a central actor in the evolution of Human Rights and International Law, Méndez observed that within the last decade, mechanisms of response to human rights violations have advanced faster than mechanisms of prevention. He said this is partly due to the nature of prevention – human activity is difficult to predict. Nevertheless, recent failures to prevent mass atrocities have also extended from political insensitivity to indicators of imminent genocide (as explored in Samantha Power’s book, A Problem from Hell, which Professor Mendez cited), and from an aversion to falling into ideological traps when using preemption.

Méndez said the major obstacles in the way of judicial mechanisms for prevention of genocide and mass atrocities are the manipulations of legitimate instruments. For example, states on the brink of genocide can use the state of emergency and visa-refusal to obscure early warnings and delay early action. Méndez addressed the realities of the limited influence of investigation, prosecution and punishment in the protection of human rights.

“Justice is an ingredient of prevention,” he said. “But not the only one.”

He said justice must be accompanied by accountability, physical and armed protection for at risk populations, humanitarian assistance, and peace negotiations to bring about sustainable solutions.

Méndez renewed his call to “operationalize” the doctrine of justice as prevention, and to develop a culture of prevention with greater sensitivity to indicators and incentives to act. When faced with skepticism about the relevance of the United Nations model, Méndez asserted that, however unfinished the structure may be, the bureaucracy is necessary for moving forward with prevention.